| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
28 Mar 2005 11:47:58 AM |
| Object: |
ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
Why would any man need another man to provide him with health care
benefits? The advantage of gay partnerships is that there are no
children at home that need attending. Let each man provide his own
health care, just like single straight people do. This notion that one
guy stays home and plays "Donna Reed" while the other one goes to work
should not become a burden on the American health care system. The
people of Michigan (and many other states) have spoken; No gay
marriage. Stop seeking "special" dispensations just because your
different.
http://www.freep.com/news/mich/gay22e_20050322.htm
Despite marriage ban, couples want health care
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit Monday asking the
courts to protect same-sex couples' health benefits in light of a state
constitutional ban on gay marriage.
In the suit, filed in Ingham County Circuit Court, the ACLU asked the
court to stipulate that the ban on gay marriage does not extend to
health care benefits for same-sex partners. The amendment, they said,
is ambiguous.
The ACLU filed the suit less than a week after state Attorney General
Mike Cox issued his legal interpretation about what effect the
amendment should have on health benefits. He concluded that the
amendment bans government agencies from extending benefits to same-sex
couples in any future contract negotiations.
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:04:20 AM |
|
|
In article <3jdb615722njqb7opv3fhifjj2m4lbhb4h@4ax.com> Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
Let me be clear: What two people decide about their decision to get
married does not affect my marriage in any conceivable way.
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
When my wife and I got married, the divorce rate in the US was over
50%. That did not stop us. We wanted to get married.
If two guys get married, I still love my wife.
If two women get married, we're still devoted to each other.
Even if one of those women is your wife? The reason I ask is if we
don't put a restriction on marriage, why not?
As long as I also cared for the third person, why not?
What? Are you kidding? If that were allowed, Al Smith's
marriage would be doomed. He'd likely desert his wife
before week's end.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:47:50 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3jdb615722njqb7opv3fhifjj2m4lbhb4h@4ax.com> Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith"
<caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
Let me be clear: What two people decide about their decision to
get
married does not affect my marriage in any conceivable way.
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
When my wife and I got married, the divorce rate in the US was over
50%. That did not stop us. We wanted to get married.
If two guys get married, I still love my wife.
If two women get married, we're still devoted to each other.
Even if one of those women is your wife? The reason I ask is if we
don't put a restriction on marriage, why not?
As long as I also cared for the third person, why not?
What? Are you kidding? If that were allowed, Al Smith's
marriage would be doomed. He'd likely desert his wife
before week's end.
What are you wearing?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:54:50 AM |
|
|
In article <1114012070.145333.73910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3jdb615722njqb7opv3fhifjj2m4lbhb4h@4ax.com> Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith"
< >
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
Let me be clear: What two people decide about their decision to
get
married does not affect my marriage in any conceivable way.
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
When my wife and I got married, the divorce rate in the US was over
50%. That did not stop us. We wanted to get married.
If two guys get married, I still love my wife.
If two women get married, we're still devoted to each other.
Even if one of those women is your wife? The reason I ask is if we
don't put a restriction on marriage, why not?
As long as I also cared for the third person, why not?
What? Are you kidding? If that were allowed, Al Smith's
marriage would be doomed. He'd likely desert his wife
before week's end.
What are you wearing?
An air of innocence, somewhat marred by a smug expression.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:53:24 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:d45u0a$olp$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <1114012070.145333.73910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
If that were allowed, Al Smith's
marriage would be doomed. He'd likely desert his wife
before week's end.
What are you wearing?
An air of innocence, somewhat marred by a smug expression.
DEVASTATINGLY WITTY!!!!
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:58:53 AM |
|
|
In article <d45u0a$olp$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu> (Cary Kittrell) writes:
In article <1114012070.145333.73910@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <3jdb615722njqb7opv3fhifjj2m4lbhb4h@4ax.com> Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> writes:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith"
< >
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and
drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Douglas Berry wrote:
Let me be clear: What two people decide about their decision to
get
married does not affect my marriage in any conceivable way.
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
When my wife and I got married, the divorce rate in the US was over
50%. That did not stop us. We wanted to get married.
If two guys get married, I still love my wife.
If two women get married, we're still devoted to each other.
Even if one of those women is your wife? The reason I ask is if we
don't put a restriction on marriage, why not?
As long as I also cared for the third person, why not?
What? Are you kidding? If that were allowed, Al Smith's
marriage would be doomed. He'd likely desert his wife
before week's end.
What are you wearing?
An air of innocence, somewhat marred by a smug expression.
Incidentally, since I think I was a bit opaque, I was not implying
that the thought of such goings-on was getting you hot. Instead
I was having a bit of gentle fun with the idea that knowledge
of such shennanigans on Doublas' part could somehow threaten your
own marriage.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 01:13:17 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Even if one of those women is your wife?
No one is advocating polygamous or polyandrous, marriage.
It is comments like that totally undermine any credible value that your
arguments might have.
This is just another whinging attempt to sidetrack an issue that you can offer
no logical support for.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 02:10:02 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Even if one of those women is your wife?
No one is advocating polygamous or polyandrous, marriage.
You'll have to keep up with the discussion because at least two people
so far don't have a problem with it.
It is comments like that totally undermine any credible value that
your
arguments might have.
This is just another whinging attempt to sidetrack an issue that you
can offer
no logical support for.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 06:02:05 PM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 12:10:02 -0700, wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" < >
wrote:
Even if one of those women is your wife?
No one is advocating polygamous or polyandrous, marriage.
You'll have to keep up with the discussion because at least two people
so far don't have a problem with it.
I have no problem with it either. However, that does not mean that it is being
advocated.
Do try to read what is written, not what think ought to be written.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 06:37:26 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 12:10:02 -0700, wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith"
<>
wrote:
Even if one of those women is your wife?
No one is advocating polygamous or polyandrous, marriage.
You'll have to keep up with the discussion because at least two
people
so far don't have a problem with it.
I have no problem with it either. However, that does not mean that it
is being
advocated.
Do try to read what is written, not what think ought to be written.
We could crosspost to the appropriate newsgroup.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 01:06:42 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 02:08:06 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting
same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
"Why should I get married?" - Joe, future non-newlywed and father to 2
OOW kids.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 05:32:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" < >
wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting
same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
"Why should I get married?" - Joe, future non-newlywed and father to 2
OOW kids.
State and federal benefits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 06:00:41 PM |
|
|
In article <C7SdnYI3s8nPRfvfRVn-3w@comcast.com> DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting
same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
"Why should I get married?" - Joe, future non-newlywed and father to 2
OOW kids.
State and federal benefits.
1049 state and federal benefits, according to a study done by
the Government Accounting Office at the request of noted
defender of traditional marriage and adulterer Henry Hyde.
My first impulse is to say that the government should get
out of the marriage biz entirely -- it should be up
to your church, or your friends, to solemnize your marriage
as they and you see fit; it shouldn't be just another government
classification like your draft status or your tax bracket.
If you're married in the eyes of whoever is important to you,
you're married.
However, until something can be done about those 1049 benefits
that have somehow ended up being regulated by the state, my
suggestion is hardly practical.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 06:14:10 PM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <C7SdnYI3s8nPRfvfRVn-3w@comcast.com> DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting
same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
"Why should I get married?" - Joe, future non-newlywed and father to 2
OOW kids.
State and federal benefits.
1049 state and federal benefits, according to a study done by
the Government Accounting Office at the request of noted
defender of traditional marriage and adulterer Henry Hyde.
My first impulse is to say that the government should get
out of the marriage biz entirely -- it should be up
to your church, or your friends, to solemnize your marriage
as they and you see fit; it shouldn't be just another government
classification like your draft status or your tax bracket.
If you're married in the eyes of whoever is important to you,
you're married.
However, until something can be done about those 1049 benefits
that have somehow ended up being regulated by the state, my
suggestion is hardly practical.
But, it's the only way to stem the slippery slope into men marrying
goats, is it not? ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 06:24:32 PM |
|
|
In article <I7ydnZN5vJWxf_vfRVn-qg@comcast.com> DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <C7SdnYI3s8nPRfvfRVn-3w@comcast.com> DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> writes:
caddyshack_al@my-deja.com wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting
same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
"Why should I get married?" - Joe, future non-newlywed and father to 2
OOW kids.
State and federal benefits.
1049 state and federal benefits, according to a study done by
the Government Accounting Office at the request of noted
defender of traditional marriage and adulterer Henry Hyde.
My first impulse is to say that the government should get
out of the marriage biz entirely -- it should be up
to your church, or your friends, to solemnize your marriage
as they and you see fit; it shouldn't be just another government
classification like your draft status or your tax bracket.
If you're married in the eyes of whoever is important to you,
you're married.
However, until something can be done about those 1049 benefits
that have somehow ended up being regulated by the state, my
suggestion is hardly practical.
But, it's the only way to stem the slippery slope into men marrying
goats, is it not? ;-)
Don't be such a pansy permissive liberal. The only way to keep
our feet off that slippery slope is to forbid ALL marriages between
any two people who know each other at all.
If arranged marriages were good enough for countless generations
of our forefathers, they're good enough for us. People who
marry people they know only do it to indulge their selfish lust.
Let childhood sweethearts marry, and the terrorists will have as
good as won.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 05:58:15 PM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 12:08:06 -0700, wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" < >
wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking
about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So what are their perceptions of marriage, and how will permitting
same sex
marriage, change those perceptions.
Factual answers please, not superstitious tripe.
Some supporting evidence, would be useful to your assertion.
"Why should I get married?" - Joe, future non-newlywed and father to 2
OOW kids.
Yes.
Well keep trying.
I'm sure you will make sense eventually.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 01:18:10 PM |
|
|
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
Your wife could be a closeted lesbian.
So what. Will preventing same sex marriage, change that?
Will it make my wife any less a lesbian?
Will it make her happier in her hetero marriage?
If the answer to any of those questions, is "no", then your argument is
fallacious.
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then produce the supporting
evidence.
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 02:13:37 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com>
wrote:
Your wife could be a closeted lesbian.
So what. Will preventing same sex marriage, change that?
She would now have the opportunity to leave him for another woman and
get married.
Will it make my wife any less a lesbian?
Not less, the same or more.
Will it make her happier in her hetero marriage?
No. Not if she longs for something else.
If the answer to any of those questions, is "no", then your argument
is
fallacious.
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then produce the
supporting
evidence.
At least two logical fallacies. Throw in a "You don't know because you
aren't gay." for a trifecta.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 05:35:23 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" < >
wrote:
Your wife could be a closeted lesbian.
So what. Will preventing same sex marriage, change that?
She would now have the opportunity to leave him for another woman and
get married.
And? If he loves her wife and she loves him, there's no reason for her
to go off and have an affair. However, if she doesn't love him and is
simply "playing the Straight game", then she is unhappy in her current
marriage.
Will it make my wife any less a lesbian?
Not less, the same or more.
Yup. The passage of a law won't create any more homosexuals.
Will it make her happier in her hetero marriage?
No. Not if she longs for something else.
So, let's get rid of heterosexual marriage, then, too. I mean, it's
just as possible for his wife to leave him for another man than it is
for her to leave him for another woman.
If the answer to any of those questions, is "no", then your argument
is
fallacious.
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then produce the
supporting
evidence.
At least two logical fallacies. Throw in a "You don't know because you
aren't gay." for a trifecta.
Which two fallacies are this? And what will the trifecta fallacy be?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 06:27:11 PM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 12:13:37 -0700, wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith" < >
wrote:
Your wife could be a closeted lesbian.
So what. Will preventing same sex marriage, change that?
She would now have the opportunity to leave him for another woman and
get married.
She has the opportunity to leave him for another man, and get married
She has the opportunity to leave him for another woman
How will banning same sex marriage, prevent that.
Will it make my wife any less a lesbian?
Not less, the same or more.
In what way.
How do you imagine the banning same sex marriage, will make a lesbian "less of a
lesbian", or a gay male, "less gay"?
Or if that is too difficult, then tell us : How will allowing same sex marriage,
make gays, and lesbians, more so?
Will it make her happier in her hetero marriage?
No. Not if she longs for something else.
Exactly, so as I said, your argument is fallacious.
If the answer to any of those questions, is "no", then your argument
is
fallacious.
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then produce the
supporting
evidence.
At least two logical fallacies.
Two logical fallacies?
Oh yes, I think I see them.
1: Your assertions do not need to be either accurate, or logical to be valid:
The first fallacy is when we assert that they do.
2: Your assertions do not require support of any kind.
The second logical fallacy is when we expect you to provide evidence to support
them.
Actually, it is not a logical fallacy, it is simply illogical on our part, to
expect you to support anything, with valid evidence.
Throw in a "You don't know because you
aren't gay." for a trifecta.
Who would that be? You? Me? Some mysterious other being?
--
Puck Greenman
The spelling Like any opinion stated here
is purely my own
#162 BAAWA Knight.
Plonked by Rob Duncan
Na bister 500,000
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 07:00:23 PM |
|
|
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 12:13:37 -0700, wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith"
<>
wrote:
Your wife could be a closeted lesbian.
So what. Will preventing same sex marriage, change that?
She would now have the opportunity to leave him for another woman
and
get married.
She has the opportunity to leave him for another man, and get married
She has the opportunity to leave him for another woman
How will banning same sex marriage, prevent that.
The original word was, "change." The promise of a legal marriage to
another woman could be more attractive to her than just living
together.
Will it make my wife any less a lesbian?
Not less, the same or more.
In what way.
If she's a lesbian, she's a lesbian. Gay marriage isn't going to make
her go straight. However, it could offer her more possibilites to be a
practicing lesbian.
How do you imagine the banning same sex marriage, will make a lesbian
"less of a
lesbian", or a gay male, "less gay"?
Can you read this: "Not less, the same or more."
Or if that is too difficult, then tell us : How will allowing same
sex marriage,
make gays, and lesbians, more so?
Well you got me there. There's no such thing as a moral homosexual so
there is no possibility of a homosexual saving themselves for marriage.
Will it make her happier in her hetero marriage?
No. Not if she longs for something else.
Exactly, so as I said, your argument is fallacious.
I said same-sex marriage would make a closeted, married lesbian happier
in her marriage? No, I didn't say that.
If the answer to any of those questions, is "no", then your
argument
is
fallacious.
If you answer "yes" to any of these questions, then produce the
supporting
evidence.
At least two logical fallacies.
Two logical fallacies?
Oh yes, I think I see them.
1) You constructed an argument with an assumed outcome that didn't take
into account all the possibilities.
2) You are arguing from ignorance.
1: Your assertions do not need to be either accurate, or logical to
be valid:
The first fallacy is when we assert that they do.
2: Your assertions do not require support of any kind.
The second logical fallacy is when we expect you to provide evidence
to support
them.
Actually, it is not a logical fallacy, it is simply illogical on our
part, to
expect you to support anything, with valid evidence.
Throw in a "You don't know because you
aren't gay." for a trifecta.
Who would that be? You? Me? Some mysterious other being?
It'd be me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
22 Apr 2005 09:20:46 AM |
|
|
On 20 Apr 2005 17:00:23 -0700, "Al Smith" <>
wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 20 Apr 2005 12:13:37 -0700, wrote:
Dubh Ghall wrote:
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, "Al Smith"
< >
wrote:
Your wife could be a closeted lesbian.
So what. Will preventing same sex marriage, change that?
She would now have the opportunity to leave him for another woman
and
get married.
She has the opportunity to leave him for another man, and get married
She has the opportunity to leave him for another woman
How will banning same sex marriage, prevent that.
The original word was, "change." The promise of a legal marriage to
another woman could be more attractive to her than just living
together.
So you'd prefer the lesbian wife to stay with her straight husband?
That's a tragedy.
Will it make my wife any less a lesbian?
Not less, the same or more.
In what way.
If she's a lesbian, she's a lesbian. Gay marriage isn't going to make
her go straight. However, it could offer her more possibilites to be a
practicing lesbian.
And what is wrong with being a "practicing lesbian" in your opinion?
Please, take into account that in a country that is not supposed to
favor one religion over any others, all Religious reasoning cannot be
used in your answer since the lesbian may not be of a sect that
opposes lesbians, or, she may be of NO religion at all.
How do you imagine the banning same sex marriage, will make a lesbian
"less of a
lesbian", or a gay male, "less gay"?
Can you read this: "Not less, the same or more."
Or if that is too difficult, then tell us : How will allowing same
sex marriage,
make gays, and lesbians, more so?
Well you got me there. There's no such thing as a moral homosexual so
there is no possibility of a homosexual saving themselves for marriage.
Where do you get your definition of 'moral' when used with
'homosexual'? I'm guessing The Bible....
This is just FINE for people who follow your religion, or, more
specifically, your sect within your religion, but outside some
interpretations of The Bible, there is NO indications that
homosexuality is any more or less "immoral" than hetrosexuality is.
In a religiously 'blind' nation... a secular nation... EVERY religion
can practice as they see fit, but, and this is a Big BUT.... Those
religions have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER to tell others to live by their
particular religious interpretations.
None.
Will it make her happier in her hetero marriage?
No. Not if she longs for something else.
Exactly, so as I said, your argument is fallacious.
I said same-sex marriage would make a closeted, married lesbian happier
in her marriage? No, I didn't say that.
but you imply that society would be better if she stayed hidden in a
"marriage".
snip.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "curtsybear" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:03:29 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.politics.homosexuality.]
On 19 Apr 2005 18:02:30 -0700, Al Smith <caddyshack_al@my-deja.com> wrote:
I'm not talking about your marriage. Nor my marriage. I'm talking about
those who are going to become married and their perceptions of
marriage.
So, of the two marriages which *actually* exist, there's no effect.
But there's a mist-shrouded marriage over there in the corner which
no person can see or touch which does NOT exist which is adversely
affected. Mmm hmm. Can the opposition make up stuff too, or is
that purely allocated to your side of this argument?
--
"I knew this man once that used to open the door at Weight Watchers
meetings and yell 'I know somebody in there's a trying to turn my
fat wife queer!'" -- Lurlean Tucker's April Fool's jokes are legend.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:25:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
James, Seattle
.
|
|
|
| User: "sangfroid" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for gays' benefits |
20 Apr 2005 10:40:55 AM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:31tc6194es65oqojgg1943ng2umc40dpql@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
James, Seattle
fwiw, a higher %age of blacks than whites don't see the similarity, which is
interesting
whit
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 10:53:10 AM |
|
|
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:31tc6194es65oqojgg1943ng2umc40dpql@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
Bigots refuse to accept that a marriage can only be between a man and a
woman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peacenik" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 11:31:18 AM |
|
|
"Sir Marksman" <kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GVu9e.3445$mG3.3252@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:31tc6194es65oqojgg1943ng2umc40dpql@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and
a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
Bigots refuse to accept that a marriage can only be between a man and a
woman.
Whooh! I've seen plenty of backward thinking in this NG, but that's a doozy!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
20 Apr 2005 02:50:23 PM |
|
|
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4604n$dak$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Sir Marksman" <kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GVu9e.3445$mG3.3252@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:31tc6194es65oqojgg1943ng2umc40dpql@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and
a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
Bigots refuse to accept that a marriage can only be between a man and a
woman.
Whooh! I've seen plenty of backward thinking in this NG, but that's a
doozy!
You ought to read some of the bile that comes from this kid who calls
herself "peacenik"!!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "James" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
21 Apr 2005 10:23:17 PM |
|
|
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4604n$dak$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Sir Marksman" <kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GVu9e.3445$mG3.3252@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:31tc6194es65oqojgg1943ng2umc40dpql@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man and
a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
Bigots refuse to accept that a marriage can only be between a man and a
woman.
Whooh! I've seen plenty of backward thinking in this NG, but that's a
doozy!
You ought to read some of the bile that comes from this kid who calls
herself "peacenik"!!!
The "Marksman" (named for the gigantic bullseye painted over his brown
starfish) has supplied more than enough bile. Knighted by the Lords of
Cornhole, he slithers out of tx.politics just long enough to blanket
Usenet with a liberal covering of semen-speckled *****.
Man, trying to read your posts is like trying to fire razor blades out
my urethra.
--
James B, former monkey #4,567,000,000
aa #944
"Hence the greatest crimes have been found, in many instances,
compatible with a superstitious piety and devotion: Hence, it
is justly regarded as unsafe to draw any certain inference in
favour of a man's morals from the fervour or strictness of his
religious exercises, even though he himself believe them sincere."
-David Hume, "The Natural History of Religion"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sir Marksman" |
|
| Title: Re: ACLU sues for special benefits for gays |
22 Apr 2005 05:26:25 AM |
|
|
"James" <shiv_@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:116grgv1koagrac@corp.supernews.com...
Sir Marksman wrote:
"Peacenik" <cnelsonpublic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4604n$dak$1@news.seed.net.tw...
"Sir Marksman" <kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GVu9e.3445$mG3.3252@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
"RainLover" <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in message
news:31tc6194es65oqojgg1943ng2umc40dpql@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 21:08:10 GMT, "Sir Marksman"
<kurt_lochner@hotmail.com> wrote:
My comment was directed at the spectre of a Constitutional amendment
specifically denying rights to American citizens.
A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being between a man
and
a
woman would not restrict or deny any US Citizen any rights.
Past Bigots: "A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as being
between people of the same race would not restrict or deny any US
citizen any rights."
I know... many don't see a simularity in these two statements, which
is the problem.
Bigots refuse to accept that a marriage can only be between a man and a
woman.
Whooh! I've seen plenty of backward thinking in this NG, but that's a
doozy!
You ought to read some of the bile that comes from this kid who calls
herself "peacenik"!!!
The "Marksman" (named for the gigantic bullseye painted over his brown
starfish) has supplied more than enough bile.
Insults, and lies, that is all you have.
Do grow up.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
